Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 307 (430386)
10-24-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-24-2007 11:58 AM


The Philosophy of the anti-philosopher: A lesson in futility
One of my favorite quotes on this subject is from David Hume
quote:
quote:If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
I was once told that if somebody has said something more succinctly than you, you should allow them the floor.
The testing for abstract reasoning. Commit your own test to the flames-- it is but sophistry and illusion.
More to the point, everything you wrote was neither scientific nor mathematic. It was philosophical. You have addressed the problem you wish to eradicate with the very weapon you use to denigrate it with! You no less use a philosopher to philosophize on the worthlessness of philosophy itself! Commit it then to the flames-- it is but sophistry and illusion.
Surely you can see the irony in that.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to refine

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2007 11:58 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 9:40 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 307 (430392)
10-24-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
10-24-2007 10:18 PM


Morality has no relevance?
Apparently in his mind. I couldn't help detecting the irony in this too. Its as if he is tacitly saying that making moral pronouncements is itself morally wrong.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 10-24-2007 10:18 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jaderis, posted 10-25-2007 3:12 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 307 (430439)
10-25-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jaderis
10-25-2007 3:12 AM


the philosophy of science
quote:
Apparently in his mind. I couldn't help detecting the irony in this too. Its as if he is tacitly saying that making moral pronouncements is itself morally wrong.
Where did you get that?
He stated to LindaLou (why is she inactive, btw?) that science is the "ONLY" thing that has ever produced any reason and meaning. He then goes on to say that since morals are viewed as subject and arbitrary that are meaningless. In other words, they are sophistry. Is then my (or Jon's) assumption all that silly?
What I think he meant (and what I tried to say) is that certain philosophical questions of morality and especially the answers cannot be applied to each and every person in each and every circumstance. What he meant is that your morality or that of any philosopher/theologian/one in particular does not necessarily apply to me. Questions such as "why should we ("I") do good to others" is answered by every person in his or her own way, even those who profess a specific religion or philosophical outlook. The questions can only be answered by ourselves.
That's the oft-repeated cry I hear, but it sort of glibly overlooks some basic fundamental principles that everyone is subjected to. That morality has been assigned to you via the law. You, Quetzal, me, Jon, and everyone at EvC is subject to the law of the land which has derived from a moral framework. Is that really sophistry? Is that really of no great importance? When a man is standing over you with a gun in hand, will you be considering the lack of empricism? Will you be thinking about equations or biological theories?
Why do you think that there are so many different sects within all the major religions or so many different schools of philosophy? because the questions are simply unanswerable for the whole.
Is the lack of consensus, all of which pervades science as well, the determining factor of importance? The lack of consensus seems like a side step to avoid the obvious pitfalls of a world devoid of philosophical notions.
More to the point concerning this: Scientific theories have at their base, some philosophical assumptions attached to them. In order to formulate some theoretical basis for this and that, one must first have in mind some kind of philosophical assumption that goads on the investigation for an concrete answer.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jaderis, posted 10-25-2007 3:12 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 10-25-2007 11:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 17 by nator, posted 10-25-2007 6:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 22 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 12:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 307 (430500)
10-25-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
10-25-2007 9:40 AM


Re: The Philosophy of the anti-philosopher: A lesson in futility
philosophy as a way of knowing is at best impractical and at worst vacuous since it has limited or no point of conjunction with the "real world". "Consign it to the flames", says Hume, because if we wish to understand the world in which we live, it (philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc) can provide no concrete answers - or even, I contend, valid questions.
But this is a presupposition, no? How can only scientific or mathematical questions be valid, only to then go on and make an unscientific statement, and still remain coherent within the framework of which it was framed?
I understood Hume's point well. But surely you or Hume couldn't be serious that philosophical questions have nothing valid, or are completely vacuous since we derive much meaning from them. What great conclusion are you going to come to about love without it? What great conclusion about morality are you going to come to without it? Or better yet, what great conclusion will you come to by studying the entrails of a gopher?
Sure, now we know the inner workings of a gopher. At the end of the day, you want to say, "so what?" Which is more critical: Understanding love and morality or the intestinal track of a gopher? Before you answer, don't misunderstand me to mean that science and mathematics are of no value. They are of immense value in their own right. But downplaying philosophy will bring you no greater answers.
I'm not clear why you think that my use of a quote from a philosopher is inappropriate when I'm commenting on philosophy. Hume was, after all, contending that philosophy is a dead-end game.
If its a dead-end game, he wouldn't have needed to postulate the question from a philosophical assumption.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 9:40 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 11:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 9:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 307 (430548)
10-25-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by bluegenes
10-25-2007 11:17 PM


Re: Assumption?
Hume wasn't making an assumption. He was speaking with evidence behind him.
Try and follow the train of logic here to look for inconsistencies:
David Hume said
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
This statement is completely contradictory because it is exactly what he said we should avoid, committing such sophistry to the flames. His statement was neither mathematical, scientific, or empirical. What should we do with such abstract reasoning?-- toss it then to the flames for it is but sophistry and illusion.
The very sword he wields to deny philosophy is the very weapon that decapitates him, because you can't deny it without asserting it, and you can't assert it without denying it. IOW, he failed his own test, and fell in to his own trap.
From his early 18th century viewpoint, he could see very well that the observations and calculations of people like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton had greatly advanced knowledge, and that truths could be arrived at by means of science.
Okay.... and?.... Science is a perfectly valid field. My issue with him is that he claims that philosophy is not-- and this, coming from a philosopher, no less. Don't you find that terribly ironic?
Then he could look around him and see that the philosopher/theologicans had come up with no truths about the universe at all.
Oh, gee, I don't know.... How about truth itself! Does the word or concept of "truth" even factor in to some mathematical equation or scientific theorem?
If Hume simply said that philosophy is ultimately subjective, there would not be any controversy. That much is quite obvious. But he didn't. He decided to say that it was totally worthless. It isn't. If it was then forums, including this one, would not mean a thing. Otherwise what you are really saying is that your opinion doesn't matter. But if didn't matter to you, then why are you here?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 11:17 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 10-26-2007 12:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 10-26-2007 11:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 307 (430561)
10-26-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jaderis
10-26-2007 12:26 AM


Re: the philosophy of science
I just entertained the idea of philosophical assumptions in science, but after thinking on it I would like to ask you now to provide an example of such an assumption. Care to?
I'm getting ready to get some sleep, so I will only address this one aspect for now.
I think nothing obviates what I'm referring to more succinctly than this ad hoc, completely invented on-the-fly response Larni made, to which Skeptical swallowed-- hook, line, and sinker without the least bit of empirical corroboration. The only assurance he apparently needs is if it sounds plausible to him. Yet, it is a philosophical assumption, not empirical fact.
http://EvC Forum: The fallacy of Prophecy? -->EvC Forum: The fallacy of Prophecy?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 12:26 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 1:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 307 (430721)
10-26-2007 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluegenes
10-26-2007 12:53 AM


Re: Assumption?
His statement is based on the empirical evidence that truths are discovered by science. So it is not contradictory.
What is truth, bluegenes? Give me scientific and/or mathematical meanings on truth.
Hume was not a philosopher who wanted to do away with all philosophy. What he wanted to throw into the fire was philosophy that did not have any respect for empirical evidence. Stuff that people just made up in their heads.
How are you certain that, whatever it might be, is made up in their heads, but that Hume is exempt from this?
He wanted to do away with the 18th century equivalent of the kind of mumbo-jumbo that your friend Ravi comes out with, which is why Ravi doesn't like him.
Ah, right... Mumbo Jumbo... Well, Mr. Zacharias' mumbo jumbo was effective enough to tear down a supposed rationalist stronghold by simply removing one, tiny little stone from the castle. Call it mumbo jumbo or by any other name, but I'd say its a little more than significant.
How would Ravi make a living if he had to present evidence for his waffle?
The only waffling I'm seeing is coming from your end of the spectrum being that its more than evident, at this conjuncture, that both Hume's and Quetzal's assertions cannot stand up to its own scrutiny.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 10-26-2007 12:53 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by bluegenes, posted 10-27-2007 10:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 307 (430868)
10-28-2007 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by bluegenes
10-27-2007 10:44 AM


Re: Assumption?
quote:
What is truth, bluegenes? Give me scientific and/or mathematical meanings on truth.
You could just use the dictionary.
Which also is neither mathematical nor scientific, which only illustrates the point further that his statement is fundamentally flawed.
I can appreciate the fact that things that cannot be quantified in to precise measurements would be viewed with more suspicion than that which can. But it will only take you so far. The mind doesn't yearn for stale statistics. It reaches for something much more grand. And studying the entrails of the gopher will never bring you to that point.
What Hume is pointing out, and what you seem to find so difficult to understand, is that there is no reason to claim truth without evidence.
I understood it. Its a false pretense. Some things cannot be verified by test. If you told me that you loved your son or daughter, and I asked you for evidence, you could not prove that to me. Nothing you type to me could persuade me empirically. But does that mean that you don't actually love your children just because you can't prove that to me in the same way you could prove the Pythagorean Theorem?
Without evidence, it's meaningless, is what he's saying.
Love, sir, is not meaningless. Words and expression are not meaningless, sir. So Mr. Hume, quite simply, is wrong. There is no greater evidence that he is transparently wrong than his own description which failed his own test for validity.
This does not mean that Hume was not brilliant. This does not mean that Hume was not influential. This does not mean anything other than he was wrong in this instance.
Empiricism works. The local witch doctor can make something up, and tell others that it's true. Hume suggests that you should ask him for evidence.
What does that have to do with the grandeur of what he postulated?
As your personal philosophy seems to be that if you have faith in something, then it becomes an objective truth, it's not surprising that you don't like Hume's suggestion. Or is that your personal philosophy? Your hero, Ravi, states that there is empirical evidence for your beliefs. Would you like to start a thread about this?
So you believe in objective truths? Do you believe that absolutely? Will your answer be given empirically? Since this very dialogue, according to Hume's reasoning, is non-scientific, can we even trust it?
Where and when?
... What have we been discussing now in a number of exchanges? There is no need to be coy about it.
Hume is talking about philosophy that claims to have truths about the universe. If you think that stating that Mohamed was speaking the word of God, without evidence, is useful philosophy, then you disagree with him. He requires evidence for such claims, and so do I.
Hume, in the process of saying this proved his own test for reasoning wrong by the very rules he ascribed to it. He couldn't even pass his own test. So since his statement was neither mathematical nor scientific, what empirical evidence do you possess to know that he was correct in his assertion?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul,
distorts the heavens from pole to pole,
and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.”
-William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bluegenes, posted 10-27-2007 10:44 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 10-28-2007 9:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 43 by iceage, posted 10-28-2007 1:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 307 (430961)
10-28-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluegenes
10-28-2007 9:07 AM


Re: Assumption?
Whatever gave you the idea that words were defined by numbers?
Hume! You even quoted it again.
quote:
:If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Do [words] contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Then its sophistry. Get rid of it, even though I'm using measurements that run completely against my own premise.
Hume's volume contains both "abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number" and "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence". It would only have to contain one or the other to fit his criteria. He is not saying that all "volumes of divinity or school metaphysics" are useless. Only those which have neither of those criteria.
Then neither would anything else other than those two, is the point!
Therefore, Ravi's claim of contradiction is plain wrong.
You couldn't possibly believe that and still remain honest.
There's plenty of evidence for love.
Not according to what Hume outlines. Read it again. Love is totally subjective and there is NO WAY to quantify something like love. Yet, as you freely admit, it obviously exists. I don't doubt that Hume believed in love either. What I am saying is his declaration is incompatible with reality, or at the very least, his test for uncovering truth claims is incomplete.
Neither does he claim that words and expressions are meaningless.
You'd be surprised how many people believe that they are, all the while responding to the very phrase, "Are words meaningless?" Well, if they were meaningless, then we wouldn't understand each other now would we? Words or alphabetical characters are contrived by the human mind, sure. But so are number characters.
"Volume" is a meaningful word. It doesn't mean extract.
I don't understand what you mean here.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 10-28-2007 9:07 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 10-29-2007 9:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2007 9:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 307 (431214)
10-29-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Archer Opteryx
10-29-2007 12:43 PM


POTM
Wow, Archer... This is POTM material. I'm glad someone sees it in the same light that I do. Since you have more clout than I here at EvC, perhaps they will listen to you, 'cause they sure don't listen to me. Great post. Very thorough.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-29-2007 12:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 307 (431408)
10-30-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
10-30-2007 3:00 PM


The irony that just keeps on giving
Remaining completely (and blissfully) ignorant of epistemology was never any impediment to my learning about the world around me. From my experience working with actual scientists I can inform you that the concerns of so-called "philosophy of science" are remote irrelevancies to the day-to-day work of scientists.
Science is guided by the general "philosophy of science." You can't avoid it. You can't assert it without denying it, and you can't deny it without asserting it, thus giving you the circular reasoning spoken of by myself, Archer, Java, and Modulous.
I know what you are trying to say, along with Quetzal-- that philosophy is subjective, and can't ascertain concrete answers like empirical science can. I get that part up. And I agree with the statement up to a finite point. But to completely dismiss epistemics as a legitimate discipline is to dismiss the basis for even coming to science from a theoretical approach. Interpreting evidence often first derives from a philosophical notion as it cancels out possible variables a priori.
Even a child, completely ignorant of all thought in the "field" of epistemology, is able to learn about the world around them simply by keeping an open mind and open eyes. So, obviously, tackling the sophistry of epistemology is not a prerequisite to learning about the natural world.
I think perhaps the problem is that when we think of philosophy, we tend to associate these with some grand Aristotlean paradox, which, while being an aspect of philosophy, is not in and of itself the summation of philosophy. Children learn very early on about philosophy. Any truth claim made, or the very nature of what truth is, is philosophical. They are tackling epistemological questions before they can entertain scientific ones. What is true? What is false? What is truth? What are falsehoods? These come before the Pythagorean theorem or the aggregate air speed of an African swallow-- none of which, by the way, could be understood without that integral understanding of some basic philosophical points first.
That's exactly my point. A field which can't settle even the most basic, fundamental questions of its discipline clearly lacks rigor and cannot meaningfully inform us about anything.
Is meaning an aspect of mathematics, science, or empiricism in general?
It's ridiculous. It would be like biologists being completely unable to arrive at any consensus about whether or not populations grow to the capacity of their environment. Physicists completely unable to determine whether or not objects had mass. Chemists completely unable to determine whether or not HCl was an acid or base.
I think what might be even more ridiculous is you placing any of these higher up on the totem than, say, love.
Of course, the fact that kicking rocks is what we're reduced to only confirms my view that philosophy can't provide answers to any questions. Johnson's "proof" not only refutes solipsism, it refutes philosophy altogether.
Is that a scientific statement or a philosophical one? Better yet, what Johnson's statement a scientific statement or a philosophical one?
Philosophy, of course, was originally all forms of thinking about things - mathematics/logic, empirical science, etc. As the rigorous fields were spun off into disciplines of their own right, philosophy came to represent only those things that, with no rigor, were of no use to those seeking real knowledge.
Well, you're right. The word philosophy in Greek really just means the "love of knowledge." That's broad and all encompassing. But I agree with Mod that you seem to be attacking philosophy when perhaps you mean to really be bashing metaphysics.
Philosophy is a dumpster.
More scientific statements?
If you think the be-all and -end-all of knowledge is to ask the question, then obviously philosophy has endless appeal to you. If you're someone who believes that answers are more useful, then you'll correctly see philosophy as a dumping ground for bullshit that sounds impressive until you stop and think about it.
Crash, everything you have stated is philosophical. Everything! You really can't see the irony in all of this? You are nailing your own coffin shut. You can't even glean answers about science without having first dealt with the philosophical aspect.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 3:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 307 (431538)
10-31-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
10-31-2007 2:32 AM


Re: Where's the rigor
No rigor.
No rigor in economics either? What do you constitute as "rigor" then?
Economists still argue about whether economies are driven by supply or by demand. A field that cannot settle even the most fundamental of its questions is a field with no rigor.
So Alan Greenspan can't reasonably be credited for anything? He just sort of haphazardly ran the economy for a few decades? He gets no credit at all? Thank random chaos because there is no rigor in economics (which is a bald assertion)?
You're thinking of anthropology, which is the study of human beings. The study of religion as a human phenomenon is anthropology, or possibly sociology. Theology is the study of God, and like economics and philosophy, is a field with no rigor.
But you just said it deals with mathematics, which has to be completely precise in order to ascertain facts, or to make predictions about the market based on graphical support. So now mathematics has no rigor?
What, are we to accept as valid any field that appends an "ology" to its name? What are your feelings, then, about dragonology? Wizardology? Unicorn science?
The suffix "ology" is not attached to the word philosophy, so I hardly see the correlation. But "ology" simply means "the study of." What's wrong with that?
Not being able to distinguish between fact and fantasy doesn't add to knowledge, Ang. Knowledge only comes when truth can be distinguished from fiction.
And truth, by its very nature, only comes by epistemology. Grapple with that for a moment... Unless of course you can describe to me what truth is using your highly touted and highly coveted scientific rigor.
Fields such as philosophy and theology - and, yes, economics - have absolutely no ability to do that. Thus, they're of no value for contributing to human knowledge. They may be fun, or they may be useful for generating deep-sounding bullshit to impress undergrads, but, lacking rigor, they contribute nothing to human knowledge.
You speak of knowledge in a philosophical light. You are tacitly saying that knowledge is good, and the lack of knowledge is bad. What is good and bad in science?
The more you push against these very simple precepts, the more it pushes back against you.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 2:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 9:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024